Comparative RNA quantification of HIV-1 group M and Non-M with the roche cobas ampliprep/cobas taqman HIV-1 v2.0 and abbott real-time HIV-1 PCR assays

Laboratoire de Virologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis AP-HP, INSERM U941, Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.56). 03/2011; 56(3):239-43. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182099891
Source: PubMed


A new version of the Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 assay (CA/CTM v2.0) has been introduced to overcome the underquantification observed with the first version.
We compared the Roche Cobas CA/CTM v2.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assays for HIV-1 group M and non-M viral load measurement.
We found a good correlation (r = 0.96) between the 2 techniques for the 260 HIV-1 group M plasma samples tested. The Roche Cobas assay gave significantly higher values than the Abbott assay, and 51 samples (20%) yielded differences greater than 0.5 log10 copies per milliliter. Conversely, 2 samples were more than 0.5 log10 copies per milliliter higher with the Abbott assay than with the Roche Cobas assay. Among the 84 samples with undetectable viral load in the Abbott assay (detection limit 40 copies/mL), 17 (20%) were detectable with the CA/CTM v2.0 assay (detection limit 20 copies/mL), with values ranging from 41 to 897 copies per milliliter. Extrapolation of the Abbott curves led to 10/17 (59%) of these samples being quantifiable. HIV-1 groups O and P were similarly quantified by the two techniques.
The results of the Roche Cobas CA/CTM v2.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assays correlate well. The new version of the CA/CTM assay shows improved sensitivity. Nevertheless, the 2 assays differ by more than 0.5 log₁₀ copies per milliliter for some samples.

37 Reads
    • "Moreover, these discrepancies are even more pronounced with the highly divergent non-M (N, O, and P) groups of HIV-1 [7] [8]. As the genetic diversity of HIV has evolved on a worldwide scale, so has the industrial development and improvement of HIV tests [1], such as the Roche CA/CTM " v2.0 " , the updated version of the Roche CA/CTM assay, which is now far more adapted to genetic diversity including non- M variants [9]. However, few data are available for the bioMérieux EM/EQ v2.0 assay [10] [11] [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An improved version of the bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 has been introduced to overcome the underquantification observed with previous versions, especially with non-B HIV-1 subtypes. Comparing bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 versus Roche Cobas CA/CTM v2.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assays for HIV-1 group M and non-M (N, O, P) viral load measurement. The three assays were tested in parallel on 103HIV-1 group M plasma samples, and on non-group M HIV-1 culture supernatants. Values obtained for the 103HIV-1 group M plasma samples tested with bioMérieux assay showed good overall correlation compared to the 2 others. The Roche Cobas assay gave higher values than the bioMérieux assay, while Abbott and bioMérieux both displayed similar results. However, analysis showed a wider dispersion in results when comparing the bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 and the other 2 techniques. All data taken into account, we observed frequent discrepancies in quantification, of the plasma samples and major differences above 1log in 10/72 (13.8%). The quantification of non-M HIV groups in culture supernatant has shown variable results, with better quantification of HIV-O and of HIV-N respectively with the Abbott assay and the bioMérieux assay. The bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 showed improved sensitivity to non-B HIV-M subtypes compared to previous versions. Notwithstanding, we observed frequent discrepancies and a wide dispersion in results when comparing bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 and the other 2 techniques. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 08/2015; 71:76-81. DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.08.007 · 3.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Depending on methodologies available at the different clinical centers participating in this study, plasma viremia was determined using three different assays: the Roche Cobas CA/CTM version 2.0 (Mannheim, Germany), the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (Chicago, Illinois), and the VERSANT HIV-1 Version 3.0 (Bayer Corporation, Diagnostics Division, Tarrytown, New York) [32], [33]. Previous studies demonstrated that even if there was not a uniform approach regarding the HIV-1 viral load detection, the results obtained by these assays correlated very well, only a few samples having a difference of more than 0.5 log10 copies/mL [34], [35]. For 304/305 patients (99.7%) viremia measurements were quantifiable above 500,000 copies/mL. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background We previously found that a very low geno2pheno false positive rate (FPR ≤2%) defines a viral population associated with low CD4 cell count and the highest amount of X4-quasispecies. In this study, we aimed at evaluating whether FPR ≤2% might impact on the viro-immunological response in HIV-1 infected patients starting a first-line HAART. Methods The analysis was performed on 305 HIV-1 B subtype infected drug-naïve patients who started their first-line HAART. Baseline FPR (%) values were stratified according to the following ranges: ≤2; 2–5; 5–10; 10–20; 20–60; >60. The impact of genotypically-inferred tropism on the time to achieve immunological reconstitution (a CD4 cell count gain from HAART initiation ≥150 cells/mm3) and on the time to achieve virological success (the first HIV-RNA measurement <50 copies/mL from HAART initiation) was evaluated by survival analyses. Results Overall, at therapy start, 27% of patients had FPR ≤10 (6%, FPR ≤2; 7%, FPR 2–5; 14%, FPR 5–10). By 12 months of therapy the rate of immunological reconstitution was overall 75.5%, and it was significantly lower for FPR ≤2 (54.1%) in comparison to other FPR ranks (78.8%, FPR 2–5; 77.5%, FPR 5–10; 71.7%, FPR 10–20; 81.8%, FPR 20–60; 75.1%, FPR >60; p = 0.008). The overall proportion of patients achieving virological success was 95.5% by 12 months of therapy. Multivariable Cox analyses showed that patients having pre-HAART FPR ≤2% had a significant lower relative adjusted hazard [95% C.I.] both to achieve immunological reconstitution (0.37 [0.20–0.71], p = 0.003) and to achieve virological success (0.50 [0.26–0.94], p = 0.031) than those with pre-HAART FPR >60%. Conclusions Beyond the genotypically-inferred tropism determination, FPR ≤2% predicts both a poor immunological reconstitution and a lower virological response in drug-naïve patients who started their first-line therapy. This parameter could be useful to identify patients potentially with less chance of achieving adequate immunological reconstitution and virological undetectability.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e105853. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0105853 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Data on bias were also available comparing index tests to the Abbott RealTime (Figure 4) [19], [29], [30], [32], [35], [39], [41], [42], [45], [48], [53], TaqMan v2.0 (Figure 5) [24], [30], [35], [41], [42], [50], [51], [54] and to a WHO International Standard (Table 2) [51]. Compared to the Abbott RealTime, the Taqman v2.0 overestimated VL counts by 0.04–0.33 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Viral load (VL) monitoring is the standard of care in developing country settings for detecting HIV treatment failure. Since 2010 the World Health Organization has recommended a phase-in approach to VL monitoring in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy and precision of HIV VL technologies for treatment monitoring. A search of Medline and Embase was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy or reproducibility of commercially available HIV VL assays. 37 studies were included for review including evaluations of the Amplicor Monitor HIV-1 v1.5 (n = 25), Cobas TaqMan v2.0 (n = 11), Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (n = 23), Versant HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 (n = 15), Versant HIV-1 RNA kPCR 1.0 (n = 2), ExaVir Load v3 (n = 2), and NucliSens EasyQ v2.0 (n = 1). All currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma virus levels at a lower detection limit of 1,000 copies/mL. Bias data comparing the Abbott RealTime HIV-1, TaqMan v2.0 to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5 showed a tendency of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 to under-estimate results while the TaqMan v2.0 overestimated VL counts. Compared to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5, 2-26% and 9-70% of results from the Versant bDNA 3.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 differed by greater than 0.5log10. The average intra and inter-assay variation of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 were 2.95% (range 2.0-5.1%) and 5.44% (range 1.17-30.00%) across the range of VL counts (2log10-7log10). This review found that all currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma VL of 1,000 copies/mL as a threshold to initiate investigations of treatment adherence or possible treatment failure. Sources of variability between VL assays include differences in technology platform, plasma input volume, and ability to detect HIV-1 subtypes. Monitoring of individual patients should be performed on the same technology platform to ensure appropriate interpretation of changes in VL. Prospero registration # CD42013003603.
    PLoS ONE 02/2014; 9(2):e85869. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0085869 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more